Andrews University Seminary Studies for 2004 - Vol. 42

196 Pages·2013·2.96 MB·English

Andrews University
SEMINARY
STUDIES
(cid:9) (cid:9)
Volume 42 Autumn 2004 Number 2
A(cid:9) Andrews University Press
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES
The Journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary of
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104-1500, U.S.A.
Editor:(cid:9) Jerry Moon
Associate Editor, Book Review Editor:(cid:9) John W. Reeve
Assistant Editor:(cid:9) Karen K. Abrahamson
Copy Editor:(cid:9) Leona G. Running
Associate Copy Editor:(cid:9) Madeline Johnston
Circulation Manager.•(cid:9) Ross E. Winkle
Book Review Manager:(cid:9) Marilynn Youngblood
Consulting Editors: Robert M. Johnston, Jon Paulien, Nancy J. Vyhmeister
ManagingBoardjohn McVay, Dean of the Seminary, Chair; Jerry Moon, Secretary; Lyndon
G. Furst, Dean of the School of Graduate Studies; Ron Knott, Director, AU
Press; John Baldwin; John W. Reeve; Randall W. Younker.
(cid:9)
Communications• Phone: [phone]
Fax:(cid:9) [phone]
Electronic Mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.auss.info
A refereed journal, ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES provides a scholarly
venue, within the context of biblical faith, for the presentation of research in the area of
religious and biblical studies. AUSS publishes research articles, dissertation abstracts,
and book reviews on the following topics: biblical archaeology and history of antiquity;
Hebrew Bible; New Testament; church history of all periods; historical, biblical, and
systematic theology; ethics; history of religions; and missions. Selected research articles
on ministry and Christian education may also be included.
The opinions expressed in articles, book reviews, etc., are those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the views of the editors or of the Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary.
Subscription Information: ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES is published in
the Spring and the Autumn. The subscription rates for 2003 are as follows:
Institutions(cid:9) $40.00
Individuals(cid:9) 22.00
Students/Retirees(cid:9) 16.00
*Air mail rates available upon request
Price for Single Copy is $12.00 in U.S.A. Funds.
Printing by Patterson Printing, Benton Harbor, Michigan.
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES
(cid:9)
Volume 42 Autumn 2004(cid:9) Number 2
CONTENTS
ARTICLES
SCIENCE AND RELIGION
FREEMAN, TRAVIS R. A New Look at the
Genesis 5 and 11 Fluidity Problem (cid:9) 259
REDMOND, CALVIN DI Jesus: God's Agent of Creation (cid:9) 287
OLD TESTAMENT
ESCFIELBACH, MICHAEL A. Song of Songs: Increasing
Appreciation of and Restraint in Matters of Love (cid:9) 305
NEW TESTAMENT
HOLDSWORTH, BEN. The Other Intercessor: The Holy
Spirit as Familia-Petitioner for the Father's
FiliuOmi#a in Romans 8:26-27 (cid:9) 325
MOYISE, STEVE. Singing the Song of Moses and the
Lamb: John's Dialogical Use of Scripture (cid:9) 347
THEOLOGY
JANKIEWICZ, DARIUS. Sacramental Theology and
Ecclesiastical Authority (cid:9) 361
Nc., 'EN, DENNIS. Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Luther's
Theology of the Cross: No Other God, but the
Incarnate Human God (cid:9) 383
DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS
BATES, ROBERT D. A Dictionary of Middle Egyptian for
Students of Biblical Archaeology and Old
Testament Studies (cid:9) 406
DYBDAHL, PAUL BRENT. The Stairway to Heaven: A
Critique of the Evangelical Gospel Presentation
in North America (cid:9) 407
257
258(cid:9) SEMINARY STUDIES 42 (SPRING 2004)
BOOK REVIEWS
Bailey, E. K., and Warren W. Wiersbe. Preaching in Black
and White: What We Can Learn from Each Other
(R. CLIFFORD JONES) (cid:9) 408
Bauer, David R. An Annotated Guide to Biblical
Resources forMinisty (TEREsA L. REEVE) (cid:9) 409
Catherwood, Fred. The Creation of Wealth: Recovering a
Christian Understanding of Money, Work, and
Ethics. (LEONARD GASHUGI) (cid:9) 410
Collins, John J., and Peter W. Flint, eds. The Book of Daniek
Composition and Reception (MARTIN PR(SBSTLE) (cid:9) 413
Ervin, Howard. Healing: Sign of the Kingdom
(WILLIAM E. RICHARDSON) (cid:9) 422
Friedmann, Daniel. To Kill and Take Possession: Law, Morality,
and Society in Biblical Stories (RON DU PREEZ) (cid:9) 423
Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians
(LEO RANZOLIN) (cid:9) 426
Hagner, Donald A. Encountering the Book of Hebrews:
An Exposition (ERHARD GALLOS) (cid:9) 430
Lee, John A. L. A History of New Testament Lexicograph y
(BERNARD A. TAYLOR) (cid:9) 432
Lucas, Ernest. Daniel (MARTIN PROBSTLE) (cid:9) 434
McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New
Testament Research (BERNARD TAYLOR) (cid:9) 440
Osborne, Grant R. Revelation (RANKO STEFANOVIC) (cid:9) 442
Ramirez Johnson, Johnny, and Edwin I. Hernandez.
AVANCE: A Vision for a New Mariana
(RICARDO NORTON) (cid:9) 445
Wiley, Tatha. Original Sin: Origins, Developments, and
Contemporary Meanings (DENIS FORTIN) (cid:9) 446
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The articles in this journal are indexed, abstracted, or listed in: Elenchus of Biblica;
Internationale Zeitschaftenschau fur Bibehvirsenscbafi and Grenzgebiete; New Testament
Abstracts; Index theologkus/ Zeitschnfieninhaltsdienst Theologie; Old Testament Abstracts;
Orientalistische Literaturvitung; Religion Index One, Periodicals; Religious and Theological
Abstracts; Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index; Theologircbe Zeitschnfi; Zeitschnfifiir die
alttestamentliche Wirsenschafi'.
Copyright © 2004 by Andrews University Press(cid:9) ISSN 0003-2980
Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2, 259-286.
Copyright C 2004 Andrews University Press.
A NEW LOOK AT THE GENESIS 5 AND 11
FLUIDITY PROBLEM'
TRAVIS R. FREEMAN
The Baptist College of Florida
Graceville, Florida
Introduction
Since the nineteenth century, OT scholars have generally expressed the
opinion that the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 contain generational and
chronological gaps and thus cannot be used, as James Ussher did, for
chronological purposes. Most of these scholars believe that genealogies
experience fluidity over time; that is, names are often added, omitted, or
changed in form. Since the earth is older than Ussher thought, they say,
names must have been omitted from the Gen 5 and 11 lists as they were
handed down from generation to generation. Thus, in their view, these
genealogies do not contradict the generally accepted and quite old dates
for the age of the earth and humankind.
Such a view, however, is troubling to some scholars, mostly young-
earth creationists, who insist that Gen 5 and 11 clearly present a
continuous and no-gap genealogy and chronology from Adam to
Abraham. These texts, they argue, are worded in such a way as to
exclude omissions and gaps. To suggest omissions and gaps is, in their
view, a violation of a straightforward reading of the passages.
If compelling evidence makes it clear that fluidity has occurred in
the early Genesis genealogies, then the young-earth position will be
damaged. On the other hand, if no compelling evidence exists, the
young-earth position will be strengthened and young-earth creationists
might justifiably call for OT scholars to reevaluate the chronological
value of Gen 5 and 11. Because of the continuing debate and the
diffused nature of the evidence, a new look at the Gen 5 and 11 fluidity
problem is in order. The new look set forth in this paper is organized in
such a way as to answer the question: Did fluidity, for the purpose of
compression, symmetry, or any other reason, occur during the
transmission of the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11?
The word "fluidity" as used in this study refers to the practice of
omitting names from or adding names to a genealogy, or to the practice of
'This paper was presented at the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta,
Georgia, 2003.
259
260(cid:9) SEMINARY STUDIES 42 (AUTUMN 2004)
changing the spelling of names. When omissions are made, fluidity results
in compression; that is, a shortened list. Sometimes omissions result in
symmetry; that is, an equal number of names in each section of a divided
genealogy. The terms "chronological genealogy" and "nonchronological
genealogy" are used to describe the genre of the genealogies.
The Nonchronological Genealogy View
A number of modem theologians think the Gen 5 genealogy is not an
accurate historical record, but the result of an ancient Mesopotamian list
of legendary heroes (either a king list, sage list, hero list, or a list of tribal
ancestors) that has experienced so much fluidity during the long process
of transmission from one generation to the next that most or all of its
historical and chronological value, if it ever had any, has been lost. They
express similar views concerning the Gen 11 genealogy. For these
scholars, the early Genesis genealogies, if they ever were genealogies, are
discontinuous; that is, they contain generational omissions or gaps.
Claus Westermann argues that the ten names listed in Gen 5 were
derived from an ancient tribal oral tradition regarding primeval
ancestors.2 Early in its history this tradition was divided into different
segments, which were handed down independently. Westermann locates
one segment, or partial segment, in Gen 4:25-26 (Adam, Seth, Enosh)
and another in 4:17-18 (Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael,
Lamech) as employed by the Yahwist 0). He thinks these two segments
were also used by the priestly author (P) of Gen 5; thus the names of
Gen 4 and 5 were originally the same. He also believes that fluidity
during transmission of the segments accounts for the differences
between Gen 4 and 5 concerning the spelling of names (Cain/Kenan,
Mahujael/Mahalalel, Irad/Jared, Methushael/Methuselah) and the order
of names (Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael/Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared,
Enoch). Westermann also argues that P compressed the list of names
available to him to ten because this number was "typical and normal for
genealogies" in the Ancient Near East.'
Jewish theologian Nahum M. Sarna also sees the ten names in Gen
5 as a result of compression.' He points to several other ten-
'Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-15: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 348-354. Westermann denies any connection between
Mesopotamian king lists and the ancestor names in Gen 5.
'Ibid., 352. Westermann credits Abraham Malamat with demonstrating the
common use of a ten-name pattern in ancient genealogies ("King Lists of the Old
Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,"JAOS 88 (1968): 163-173).
4Nahum M. Sama, Genesis,JPS Torah Commentary (New York: Jewish Publication
A NEW LOOK AT THE GENESIS 5 AND 11 FLUIDITY PROBLEM(cid:9) 261
name lists (Berossus's list of preflood kings, David's genealogy from .
Perez in Ruth 4:18-22 and 1 Chron 2:5, 9-15, and Abraham's genealogy
from Seth in Gen 11:10-26) in ancient records to show that ten-
generation genealogies in the biblical world were both artificial and
standard. On this basis, he says the "conclusion is unmistakable: we
have here [in Gen 5] a deliberate, symmetrical schematization of
history."5
Gerhard von Rad says the two genealogies in Gen 4 and 5
"obviously [came from] one and the same list."' The similarity of names
provides his evidence. Fluidity accounts for the different order of names
and spelling of names. He thinks the list from which the biblical
genealogies came probably was a descendant of the Babylonian tradition
of ten mythical antediluvian kings, although the Hebrew versions cast
the men as patriarchs. Thus when von Rad calls attention to the "effort
of [chapter] 5 to arrange the ages of man and the world,' he does not
mean that this text reveals their actual ages. The mythical origin and
fluid transmission of the text militate against any such literal
interpretation. He simply means the Genesis author provides a
fabricated linear view of history in order to challenge the cyclic view of
history advocated by many ancient pagan religions.'
E. A. Speiser sees similarity between the list of names in Gen 4 and
5 and surmises these two lists descended from a common
Mesopotamian source. He points to the Sumerian tradition of ten
antediluvian kings as the probable source and suggests it was
"modified" during transmission to such an extent that the original
names were completely replaced by new ones.9
John C. Gibson, likewise, points to ancient tradition as the common
source of the Gen 4 and 5 genealogies. He suggests that the number of
names in Gen 5 probably reflects the number of preflood kings in the
Sumerian tradition.1° Concerning the names in Gen 4 and 5, Gibson
points out that
The ancient heroes of Hebrew legend are brought together, presented
Society, 1989), 40-41.
'Ibid., 40.
'Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, Old Testament
Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 69.
'Ibid., 66.
8lbid., 66-69.
8E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 41-42.
1°John C. Gibson, Genesis, Daily Study Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981),
1:155-156.
262(cid:9) SEMINARY STUDIES 42 (AUTUMN 2004)
as related to each other, and little notes are added to identify the fuller
stories. The Hebrew lists probably serve as an aid to the memory of
Israel's story-tellers or "singers-of-tales." Behind them lies an old
Hebrew epic cycle which reflected the views of the early Hebrews on
the beginning of the world and rise of civilization."
In Gibson's view, the men of Gen 5 probably were not directly related
to each other. Their names were simply added to a storyteller's list as the
Hebrew epic cycle developed.
Jack Sasson also assumes a common vorlage behind the Cainite
genealogy of Gen 4 and the Sethite genealogy of Gen 5. Sasson further
maintains the Hebrews often moved an important figure to the fifth
and/or seventh position in a genealogy as a way of emphasizing his
importance. He notes, for example, that in the Genesis genealogies
Enoch is seventh from Adam, Eber is seventh from Enoch, and
Abraham seventh from Eber. For Sasson, examples like this constitute
proof of fluidity and, therefore, rule out the possibility of drawing an
accurate chronology from Gen 5 and 11."
Robert Davidson writes that the ten-name list in Gen 5 is reminiscent
of Mesopotamian king lists, thus implying the dependence of the former
on the latter for its names and its ten-member form." He notes further that
in Babylonian tradition, Enmeduranna King of Sippar was the seventh
king, just as Enoch, whose name is similar at its beginning, was seventh
from Adam. Seven was considered a sacred number. Shamash had a special
fondness for Enmeduranna and blessed him by revealing the secrets of
heaven and earth to him, just as the Hebrew deity had a special love for
Enoch and blessed him by taking him to heaven. Enoch may have passed
from the earth after 365 years, a number which may have been associated
with the sun-god!' Davidson's points are clear. First, the story of Enoch
is dependent on the story of Enmeduranna. Second, the seventh position
in ancient genealogies was reserved for outstanding characters, which often
involved moving a name from its actual position or from a position
completely outside the genealogy at hand to the seventh position. Thus
fluidity played a major role in the formation of Gen 5. Omissions were
made to achieve the standard ten-name form and names were moved for
theological purposes.
"Ibid., 156.
"Jack Sasson, "A Genealogical Convention in Biblical Chronography?" ZAW90
(1978): 171-177.
"Robert Davidson, Genesis 1-11, CBC (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1973), 61.
"Ibid., 61-62.
A NEW LOOK AT THE GENESIS 5 AND 11 FLUIDITY PROBLEM(cid:9) 263
Another group of present-day theologians (consisting mostly of
evangelicals) argues that the genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 are accurate
historical records, but that a certain number of names have been
omitted from the list. Thus they disagree with the theologians just
discussed concerning the historicity of Gen 5 and 11, but agree with
them concerning the presence of gaps in the genealogies due to fluidity.
Gleason Archer thinks the fact that both Gen 5 and 11 record exactly
ten generations indicates names have been omitted so the list will fit a
predetermined symmetrical scheme. He points to Matt 1 as an example of
another genealogy in which names are omitted for the sake of symmetry,
probably as a memory aid. While granting the existence of omissions in the
Genesis genealogies, Archer insists there must be fewer omissions than
names listed. In support of this contention, he notes that other long
genealogical lists in the Bible never drop more names than they employ.
Matthew, for example, lists at least eight ancestors for Jesus for each one
he omits. On this same basis, Archer contends humankind could not have
been anywhere near 200,000 years old, as some evangelicals propose, for
such an age would mean that an unacceptably large number of Adam's
ancestors had been dropped from the Genesis genealogies!'
K. A. Kitchen gives three reasons for doubting that Gen 5 and 11
present continuous lists of descendants!' First, certain archaeological
evidence places literate civilization in Egypt around 3000 B.C. and quite
a bit earlier in Mesopotamia," dates which conflict with a "continuous"
reading of Gen 5 and 11. Second, the word "begat" can refer to a
descendant rather than a son. Third, the symmetry of ten names in both
lists testifies to schematization.
Gordon Wenham denies the dependence of the Sethite genealogy on
either the Cainite genealogy or a Sumerian king list, but embraces the idea
of generational and historical gaps in Gen 5." Although he says
emphatically that "the Hebrew gives no hint that there were large gaps
between father and son in this genealogy," "archaeological discoveries" and
"historical problems" compel him to accept them, thus placing Adam in
"very distant times."
'Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1994),
209-212.
K. A. Kitchen,Ancient Orient andOkiTestament (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1966), 35-39.
16
"Ibid., 37. Kitchen acknowledges that archaeologists depend heavily upon carbon-
14 dating methods for these dates. Radiometric dating methods have been strongly
challenged in numerous recent scientific works.
'Gordon.). Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC (Waco: Word, 1987), 123-134.
'Ibid., 133-134.
264(cid:9) SEMINARY STUDIES 42 (AUTUMN 2004)
Derek Kidner suggests the names in Gen 5 and 11 are historical
persons, selected as separate landmarks rather than continuous links. He
finds examples of this practice in Matt 1 and in the genealogical record of
modem Arab tribes. The fact that the Gen 5 and 11 author does not total
his numbers or give the impression that the lives of the patriarchs greatly
overlapped each other leads Kidner to doubt that the genealogies could be
continuous. Archaeological evidences, which he does not spell out, which
"prove" civilization dates to at least 7000 B.C., magnify his doubts.'
J. J. Davis thinks the differences between the genealogies of Gen 4 and
5 far outweigh the similarities, so the names in Gen 5 are real people, not
creations based on the names in Gen 4.21 He believes Gen 5 and 11
mention only key antediluvian figures, not every generation, on several
grounds. First, no numerical summation appears at the end of either list.
Second,.Scripture nowhere totals the years of either list. Third, numbers are
included which have little to do with chronology. Fourth, Luke 3:36 lists
a man named Cainan as the son of Arphaxad, but Gen 11 omits him. Fifth;
on a literal reading of the text of Gen 11, Shem outlives Abraham. Sixth,
archaeological calculations based on stratigraphy, pottery typology, and
carbon-14 readings show that postflood human cultures appeared around
12,000 B.C., thus placing the flood around 18,000 B.C. Seventh, the lists
bear the marks of schematic arrangement. Davis thus suspects
"considerable" gaps in Gen 5 and 11, but he suggests that these gaps
cannot be nearly large enough to accommodate the "extravagant estimates"
of the age of humankind and the earth proposed by evolutionist
geologists.'
Victor P. Hamilton argues that the names of Cain's descendants vary
so much from Seth's in both order and spelling that the former evidently
had nothing to do with the construction of the latter; that is, they had
separate sources. Neither is the Sethite line connected to any Sumerian list
of preflood kings, since the genres differ. Seth's line forms a genealogy,
whereas the Sumerian line forms a king list. Hamilton thus sees no reason
to doubt that Gen 5 and 11 recall actual historical men who descended
from Seth and later Shem." He doubts, however, that Gen 5 and 11 record
every generation. Expressing the thoughts of many evangelicals, he writes:
'Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1967), 82.
"J. J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 102, 151.
'Ibid., 28-32, 104, 151. Davis, 30, acknowledges his dependence on William H.
Green's article "Primeval Chronology," BSac 47 (1890): 285-303.
'Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), 249-254.